Forum:Voting
Hello everyone! I have been scanning many forums, nominations, and consensus discussion, and I wanted to bring this forum up. I noticed that we haven't established a solid agreement regarding voting. Issues have been brought up with positive/opposing votes, percentage, and popularity. I think this forum will help us have a good idea of what consensus and voting is. I don't want this to be a disaster of rage and arguing but a civil discussion of how our voting system should be handled. 20:22, 8/21/2011 Percentage Voting * Positive/Opposing Voting *Well since we are discussing, this is what I think. I know that we had said that the community is growing and we should start using percentage, but the fact is, if the community grows, the outcome will start changing more. So let's say that we used to have around 12 editors that voted and 8 supported something and 4 opposed, but our community size doubled, we really don't know what the new outcome would be and we could just add up the positive and negative votes and they will cancel each other out, and then which ever side meets the requirements (5 positive & 8 positive) then we could decide like that. 16:36, 8/23/2011 Discussion Voting *I think that we should make a combination of Discussion and Majority Voting. I think users can vote (the icons) and explain their vote in the comments section as well. 23:46, 9/10/2011 Popularity Voting * Majority Voting * Comments So which system are we using for this vote? 03:31, August 22, 2011 (UTC) :We are just deciding which is the most suited for our different voting discussions. Perhaps even use a few of these systems for different things. 05:56, 8/22/2011 Exactly what is the difference between these? They are all popularity voting. It doesn't matter how you gather the statistics. 1 person = 1 vote. How they cast it is completely up to them. But if you convert that vote to a percentage, or whether you simply tally it one way or another it is the same thing. Asperon Thorn 17:05, August 22, 2011 (UTC) :Discussion voting, to me, is the least "popularity contest" vote type, depending on how it is implemented. 17:08, August 22, 2011 (UTC) I think discussion voting should be handled by Bureaucrat level users (we currently have 4) which basically leaves us with a need to +1 in case of a tie. Anyone can present valid points but only the highest ranking admins will take vote on yay or nay. That way I believe everyone can pitch in their 2 cents, but only the most responsible individuals on this wiki will be making the decision. As a note, for this to vote system to work, all top level users will be expected to vote with the exception of conflict of interest case, in which case either a substitute voter can be chosen or the vote can be concluded by the remaining top level users. This way we can have thoughtful opinions considered equally and with level head and also consider all the ramifications any particular issue resolution could bring to the wiki as a whole and individual users alike. This will be putting more responsibility for making thoughtful decisions on the shoulders of top level admins, but at the same time I feel they should be up to the task, since they do have top level admin-ship after all. -- 22:02, August 26, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with this on some aspect, but at the same time this would be removing the user equality that we all currently share. Bureaucrats are still admins, they just have the right to change more user groups and delete revision, etc. I think that giving this much power to crats would make user feel like their vote isn't needed since it will be decided among the crats anyway. Also regarding the "we currently have 4" statement, we technically only have 2 since 2 of them are inactive as of right now. Ultimately the crats will be the ones to complete and action if the consensus is needed for a certain subject, but I don't think crats should be the ones to finalize something that involves the entire community. 22:50, 8/26/2011 :::this is precisely why I'm suggesting this system. I don't want users to feel the NEED to vote, if they don't have anything constructive to bring to the discussion. I want users to contribute to voting, offer their opinion/point/etc not just have a simple +1/-1. That type of popularity voting is what got us here in the first place. Popularity voting is done when the community is given only several options and they can choose from those. Precisely like presidential elections are done that Exiton mentions below. You don't have other options either you vote for obama or mccain or you don't vote at all. When we are trying to make a decision where options are not as clear cut I want users that bother to voice their opinion to actually produce something that might help resolve the issue instead of doing the dumb oh I like this option more. In my opinion, if they user has nothing constructive to say about the issue, he shouldn't be voting in it. -- 21:02, September 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::Users that actually have a good point or good civil argumentation should be getting involved on community agreements and what not. 22:45, 9/2/2011 ::I think Discussion voting is good to handle many issues, for example decisions on page formatting. Everyone gives their opinion with reasons and then the crats pick one. It's like the judicial system with the Admin as judges and everyone else as lawyers presenting their cases. As long as the Judges act fairly then it's a good way to make minor decisions. However Tech brings up a good point in that we keep saying all editors are equal and sometimes major issues come up that may require everyone to get a vote. I think we can all agree no one would want the president of the united states elected by the discussion of top government officials. When a major issue comes up someone should be able to request a vote on the issue or maybe you can define what are vote issues and what are discussion issues ahead of time. It may seem more complicated this way but I think it will be easier in the long run as it give Bureaucrats an ability to make simple quick decisions without putting everything to a vote but at the same time give editors a way to challenge a bureaucrats decision on the rare instance that a large number of people disagree with on of their decisions. It's the equivalent of having an elected representative (Admins) deal with most government issues but calling a referendum when you need to. ::For the voting itself i would recommend % based with a Quorum, a minimum number of votes needed and a minimum length of time for people to vote. Simple majority if you are tying to make a decision with multiple options. 2/3 majority to elect a new bureaucrat. 00:16, August 27, 2011 (UTC) :::I do like the "Quorum" idea. 00:26, 8/27/2011 *I personally like a discussion system with general areas of support required to pass. For example, RfAs would be around 80%, but that varies depending on the quality of the arguments on both sides. 17:09, August 31, 2011 (UTC) *:I think discussion voting works, but it needs to remain civil and on-topic. Also, why 80%? Wouldn't it make more sense to make it 75% since it is 3/4 of the community agreeing to something. 18:33, 8/31/2011 ::if we are to pick fractions I think what Exiton suggested = 2/3 or 66.6% would work, but I think 80% will work fine too. -- 21:02, September 2, 2011 (UTC) :::If this may seem to be a bit too much, I honestly think that 51% is good enough. I mean it is more than half of the community's vote, so why not? 22:45, 9/2/2011